Tanks - what a disappointment

Discuss tactical and strategic development for 40K/Tau.
Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 375
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#55 » Sep 26 2017 01:33

KuroRyu wrote:Piranhas with fusion are fast and cheap. sure they're still point for point not as efficient as commanders but you can't have 5 commanders in one FOC slot.

Supreme command detachment?

Unit classification literally has nothing to do with list availability now you can make almost any combination of FOC slots

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#56 » Sep 26 2017 01:54

FOC slots are REALLY no issue anymore. Actually more is better because it helps you fill detachments to get more CP even.

Also Piranha unfortunately aren't really good. They are faster and more squishy Crisis suits with less damage output and none of the Crisis utility (can't use Saviour protocol or deep strike).

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 375
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#57 » Sep 26 2017 02:47

The FW piranha seems good on paper it's twice the price but instead of a BC that you can get loads of, and 2 gun drones which you can get loads of and tbh stealth suits are better equipped to work with both.

You can give it 2 rail rifles it's got +1 T, +1W 3+ armour

Seems like a decent choice actually has anyone used one?

User avatar
KuroRyu
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 284
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#58 » Sep 26 2017 12:38

Except they have twice as many wounds so they're not really more squishy and with that movement speed you can be a lot of places you can't deep strike.

Like I said. I admit they're not as powerful or efficient as our crisis or commander suits but I don't think they're a complete write off.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 315

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#59 » Sep 26 2017 12:58

KuroRyu wrote:Except they have twice as many wounds so they're not really more squishy and with that movement speed you can be a lot of places you can't deep strike.

Like I said. I admit they're not as powerful or efficient as our crisis or commander suits but I don't think they're a complete write off.


I used two trios of them in a game against Craftworld Aeldari recently. They straight up chewed up and spat out two wave serpents, a trio of Vypers, and a squad of guardians on an objective. In three turns. They were also able to strategically deploy 10 Gun Drones to that same objective and firmly hold it.

And I only lost 1 Piranha.

Plus there is a nice trick with the Piranha when you are going against a transport. Pop the gun drones off before you move, then use the Piranha to pop the transport. Now the troops are standing out in the cold, and the gun drones (as they are now a separate unit that did not have to declare its shooting at the same time as the anti-tank weapons on the piranha) get the then barrage the infantry who just got melted out of their metal box.

zawyvern
Shas'Saal
Posts: 32

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#60 » Sep 28 2017 11:10

Arka0415 wrote:It's absolutely tough. You either need to use Commanders w/ 4x Fusion Blasters to take care of the Predators, or XV8s/Commanders w/ Cyclic Ion Blasters in larger numbers.


They are good, but as a one trick index most people will learn how to counter it.

Arka0415 wrote:Yeah, that's exactly the issue. I guess Broadsides get a little niche as they can take Velocity Trackers, or HYMP w/ ATS, but yeah they're shockingly expensive. Unless the points come down a lot in the new Codex no one will use them.


I struggle to find a place for broadsides, perhaps in a suit heavy force where other units are priority over them. but then they use up a huge chunk of points.

Arka0415 wrote:I mean, with this loadout you're talking about 1000+ points worth of dedicated anti-tank, worse yet 1500+ points if you add XV8s. We need to use cost-effective solutions like Fusion Commanders and battlesuits with Cyclic on Blasters. I bring one Hammerhead at 1500-2000 points and two at 2000+ points; in my opinion they're not a spammable unit but rather they provide a versatile, long-range gun that's good at finishing off targets your XV8s and Commanders didn't quite kill.


yup. but as a guy with 8 devilfish hulls, a bunch of hammerhead turrets and not too many suits. I really don't see the point investing too heavily in models just yet.

zawyvern
Shas'Saal
Posts: 32

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#61 » Sep 28 2017 11:16

just wanted to comment on all the other posts.

some good comparisons were made to other army's units. but I didn't see any within the army.
maybe because it's obvious, but simply knowing which units to take over others. example: strike team with carbines vs. stealth suit with burst cannon. 2 firewarriors have same firepower at same range. so 12 firewarriors to 6 stealthsuits, 96 to 180pts. what do you get? same wounds, 1 better toughness and strength, better save, -1 to hit(huge), faster, infiltrate, and fly keyword. can also take suit systems for better performance (but costly). (stealth, but depends on situation)
Or gun drones to the carbine firewarriors. (Basically gun drones better in everyway, if no character support)

Point is the index feels like they didn't balance the codex internally. obvious ways to make builds are few and anything "fluffy" is junk.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#62 » Sep 29 2017 12:22

zawyvern wrote:just wanted to comment on all the other posts.

some good comparisons were made to other army's units. but I didn't see any within the army.
maybe because it's obvious, but simply knowing which units to take over others. example: strike team with carbines vs. stealth suit with burst cannon. 2 firewarriors have same firepower at same range. so 12 firewarriors to 6 stealthsuits, 96 to 180pts. what do you get? same wounds, 1 better toughness and strength, better save, -1 to hit(huge), faster, infiltrate, and fly keyword. can also take suit systems for better performance (but costly). (stealth, but depends on situation)
Or gun drones to the carbine firewarriors. (Basically gun drones better in everyway, if no character support)

Point is the index feels like they didn't balance the codex internally. obvious ways to make builds are few and anything "fluffy" is junk.

You never take Firewarrior with Carbines. The Pulse Rifle is already much better for the same points. If you want Carbines you either look at Pathfinder (because they already have them, not because they are good on them) or Gun Drones because they get two Carbines for the same cost as Firewarrior with one.
The comparison with Burst Cannons is also off. Everybody knows that Burst Cannons are bad. ^^

However that's not the point of this thread. It's not about how bad the Codex is balanced internally. It's about our tanks.

zawyvern
Shas'Saal
Posts: 32

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#63 » Sep 29 2017 02:54

Panzer wrote:However that's not the point of this thread. It's not about how bad the Codex is balanced internally. It's about our tanks.


Fair enough. Got a little distracted with another thread. Kind of crossed over. :smile:

I'll just add one point. I wish the tanks were more customizable. Able to take better builds. That might help.

User avatar
Harkus959
Shas'Saal
Posts: 131

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#64 » Oct 21 2017 06:29

How does the IonHead factor into this? It's higher rate if fire seems like it should help in some way, and a flat damage amount per shot is nice. The randomness of D6 shots and damage all over the Tau list is rather off putting to be honest.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2221

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#65 » Oct 21 2017 08:40

This thread's back! Our tanks are in such a bad place right now... best not to think about it and instead reminisce about good ol' 5th Edition where Hammerheads could knock out Land Raiders in a single shot :D

Harkus959 wrote:How does the IonHead factor into this? It's higher rate if fire seems like it should help in some way, and a flat damage amount per shot is nice. The randomness of D6 shots and damage all over the Tau list is rather off putting to be honest.

The Ion Cannon Hammerhead is definitely a good tank. It's a solid option when you're trying to pick wounds from light vehicles and heavy infantry. However, it's mainly designed to destroy things that we Tau are already good at destroying. It's overcharge profile is unreliable, and its weapon is so expensive that other Ion-armed units like CIB XV8s and CIB Commanders end up out-performing it. I think even the Ghostkeel is a better source of Ion damage.

If there are any die-hard Ion Cannon fans out there, speak up though! I'd love to hear your thoughts.

User avatar
Harkus959
Shas'Saal
Posts: 131

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#66 » Oct 22 2017 06:46

I mentioned this over on another thread, but I thought it might be worth contributing here too:

Harkus959 wrote:The Alaitoc focus confirms that the fire prism can fire twice when moving under half speed, very much like the AM Leman Russ ability, so it seems that "double tap" rules are a distinct possibility for battle tanks with a powerful primary weapon. Fingers crossed that we get this for the Hammerhead too, it would make railheads considerably more deadly.


What do you think? Would a double-tap ability help make the railhead more viable, or would the fact that other tanks also get it, just mean that the current status quo is maintained?

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#67 » Oct 22 2017 06:57

It would help to close the gap to space marine tanks but of course wouldn't be enough to close the gap to the other tanks that can double tap now.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2221

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#68 » Oct 22 2017 07:37

Panzer wrote:It would help to close the gap to space marine tanks but of course wouldn't be enough to close the gap to the other tanks that can double tap now.

I think it would give us more parity, but we'd still lag behind every other faction. You're still looking, statistically, at less than one wound. However, if Markerlights suddenly become cheap and effective (i.e. Hammerheads can easily get BS2+) then those two shots would suddenly get much more reliable.

I'm seriously thinking that we need 2D6 damage on the Railgun for it to be viable.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#69 » Oct 22 2017 07:42

2d6 damage wouldn't be the solution though. Just having a single shot is the problem. It was the problem in 7th and is the problem now.

AleksandrGRC
Shas'Saal
Posts: 76

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#70 » Oct 22 2017 07:46

Seen on dakka a guy making a case for the tidewall gunfort. If our hammerheads get double shots at half speed. Kinda seems like that might do in the Gunfort. And the broadsides would need a decent reduction in cost to make it compete internally. Especially considering the ballistic skills.

I say make the railgun rapidfire 3d3 mortals :crafty:

Oh and sniper :eek:

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2221

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#71 » Oct 22 2017 10:08

Panzer wrote:2d6 damage wouldn't be the solution though. Just having a single shot is the problem. It was the problem in 7th and is the problem now.

Oh, I'm talking about having both abilities. 2D6 damage and two shots. Space Marine Predators have 4d6 potential damage. Leman Russes have 3D6 potential damage, or up to 5D6 with Melta sponsons. I haven't seen the Eldar codex yet but I'm sure the Fire Prism is equally frighteningly good.

The Hammerhead currently gets 1D6.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 375
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#72 » Oct 23 2017 03:00

Arka0415 wrote:
Panzer wrote:2d6 damage wouldn't be the solution though. Just having a single shot is the problem. It was the problem in 7th and is the problem now.

Oh, I'm talking about having both abilities. 2D6 damage and two shots. Space Marine Predators have 4d6 potential damage. Leman Russes have 3D6 potential damage, or up to 5D6 with Melta sponsons. I haven't seen the Eldar codex yet but I'm sure the Fire Prism is equally frighteningly good.

The Hammerhead currently gets 1D6.


Actually a lemun Russ demolisher can potentially do 72 damage in a turn though it would have to be firing at about 10 multiwound models but could easily kill 5 piranhas in 1 volley with just it's main cannon.

Also standard lemun Russ had 6 D3 potential not 3D6 Max damage is the same but minimum 6 damage and can fire twice so actually 12 D3 and if you factor doctrine into the mix a stormtroopers lemun Russ could in theory cause 24 D3 damage from its battle cannon in a turn. That is very very unlikely however.

Return to “Tau Tactics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: yuedai and 1 guest